John Carpenter's Suburban Screams

I'm just gonna come out and say it.. John Carpenter was the king of the 80s. But he hasnt been on that throne in over 3 decades. He had a couple passable movies in the 90s but the dude lost his touch tbh. He's been thriving producing synth music for a while now. That's where I think he should've stayed.

His last movie The Ward was so awful I was like yea dude, retire already lol.

So when I saw that he was doing this series, I literally had no interest at all. But... then I saw that it was a documentary series and that had my intrigued! Like wow a true crime series hmmm. This could possibly be worth a watch maybe.

Unfortunately all of these "cases" seem really unbelievable and honestly very uninteresting. I found myself bored to death through the whole thing. I also felt somewhat phony. Like these people recounting the events were actors or something. Not to mention the re-enactments were REALLY horrible. Like that's to be expected from your run of the mill true crime series.. but this is John Carpenter right?? It should be better I would think...

I mean for comparison.. ID has a series called Real Detective that was rebranded to The Case That Haunts Me and that series has amazing re-enactments and it's on the discovery channel..

Anyway... it's not like the worst thing I've ever seen (hence the 3 stars) but it was definitely boring and I can't really recommend it either.

5 of the 6 stories can be verified. 2 of them are in Canada and the last time I checked Canada is NOT "hometown America". The Jamul, Ca. Story is the only one (so far) that cannot be verified. It is typical John Carpenter with unnecessary scenes, stupid dialogue and long held shots that are annoying, not suspenseful; and it takes too long to tell the tale. It's all of John Carpenter's trademarks. If you don't like JC, don't watch it. That simple. I like JC, so the stories are interesting, and I know how he's going to tell them. Also, all the stories but one have multiple sources to back up the stories. Canada has strong libel laws so the first two episodes have the most sources. I will say that the 'Ouija" board is pronounced "we - ya", as in oui the french word for yes and ja the German word for yes; not "we-gee". In what universe has the "a" ever been pronounced "eee"? Otherwise the show is the John Carpenter version of true story, NOT true crime as some of these reviews have stated. It's about the story.

I don't understand the rating of the season. It's 4.4 (Date: 17.10.2023).

But, comparing this rating 4.4 with the individual ratings of the six episodes of season 1

Season 1 - Episode1: 5.4 / Episode 2: 6.2 / Episode 3: 7.1 / Episode 4: 7.1 / Episode 5: 6.5 / Episode 6: 7.1

something is not right. The average of ratings of the six episodes is 6.6.

Some reviewers here haven't even seen all episodes of this first season, but write a review and rating more or less after watching just two episodes. Sorry, but this is no good practice and gives a false impression of this series. Furthermore, how is it possible, that the season gets an overall rating of 4someting, but the average rating of the episodes is 6something? Makes no sense.

I suggest, please check the individual rating of each episode.

Some thoughts on the show: The show has some old-school flair, is not groundbreaking or needlessly overproduced and follows some traditional horror story telling. It uses the true-crime setting with interviews and storytelling as flashbacks. If this kind of story telling is not your flavor, than skip this show.

John Carpenter is one of the shows executive producers, directed episode 6 and composed the main theme music with his son Cody. Furthermore, his voice is in the intro of the episodes.

I liked the stories, the atmosphere and the good production values of this show. It's a solid horror show for gloomy sundays.

My overall rating for this first season is somewhere near six stars.

----

18.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.5

episodes ratings: E1: 5.4 / E2: 6.5 / E3: 7.2 / E4: 7.3 / E5: 6.5 / E6: 7.3 = average episodes rating 6.7

--> difference between season rating 4.5 vs average episode rating 6.7

----

19.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.4

episodes ratings: E1: 5.2 / E2: 6.0 / E3: 7.0 / E4: 7.2 / E5: 6.1 / E6: 7.2 = average episodes rating 6.5

--> difference between season rating 4.4 vs average episode rating 6.5

----

23.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.4

episodes ratings: E1: 5.4 / E2: 6.2 / E3: 6.6 / E4: 6.4 / E5: 5.7 / E6: 6.7 = average episodes rating 6.2

--> difference between season rating 4.4 vs average episode rating 6.2.

----

07.11.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.6

episodes ratings: E1: 4.9 / E2: 5.9 / E3: 6.0 / E4: 5.7 / E5: 5.2 / E6: 6.2 = average episodes rating 5.7

--> difference between season rating 4.6 vs average episode rating 5.7.

Title: Suburban Screams: Unmasking the Horrors of Small Towns

Introduction: John Carpenter's documentary, "Suburban Screams," delves into the unsettling underbelly of seemingly idyllic small towns, unearthing true tales of terror that occurred within their confines. This thought-provoking exploration challenges the viewer's perception of safety and reveals the macabre secrets lurking beneath the surface of suburban tranquility.

Summary: "Suburban Screams" takes viewers on a chilling journey through a series of meticulously researched and narrated stories. John Carpenter, known for his mastery in the horror genre, brings his expertise to the realm of non-fiction storytelling, creating a captivating and spine-tingling experience. The documentary explores multiple cases of horrifying events that took place in small towns, shattering the illusion of peaceful neighborhoods.

Carpenter's meticulous attention to detail is evident throughout the documentary, as he weaves together interviews with survivors, law enforcement officials, and experts to provide a comprehensive understanding of each case. The storytelling is masterfully executed, with suspenseful reenactments that heighten the tension and immerse the audience in the eerie atmosphere of these suburban nightmares.

The documentary covers a range of themes, including serial killers, unsolved mysteries, and paranormal occurrences. Through extensive research and careful curation, Carpenter presents a diverse selection of cases that offer a nuanced perspective on the dark side of small-town life. Each story is thoughtfully examined, drawing viewers into the psychological and emotional impact these events had on the communities involved.

One of the most commendable aspects of "Suburban Screams" is its ability to balance entertainment with sensitivity. Carpenter handles the subject matter with respect for the victims and their families, focusing on the human aspect of these tragedies rather than exploiting them for shock value. This approach resonates with the viewer and elevates the documentary beyond a mere compilation of horror stories.

Another noteworthy element is the documentary's visual aesthetic. Carpenter's signature style is evident in the atmospheric cinematography, which evokes a sense of foreboding and unease. The use of lighting, shadows, and haunting musical scores enhances the storytelling, immersing viewers in the dark undercurrents of these small towns.

While "Suburban Screams" excels in many aspects, some viewers may find the pacing to be uneven at times. The documentary's structure occasionally jumps between stories, which can disrupt the immersive experience. Additionally, certain cases may receive more attention than others, leaving some viewers craving a deeper exploration of certain.

Only two of these "stories" felt even remotely true. The rest felt like they were very loosely based on only some actual events at best. So many of the details were derived or interpreted from presumption, or portrayed in such a way that is all assumed through implication. Some of the "truth" to the stories are merely assumed as truth cuz "there was a police report" so therefore...it must be true, right?! It's like Unsolved Mysteries met Goosebumps, but you're just supposed to take everyone's word as truth, despite there being very little to suggest it's anything other than a local legend. A lot of the acting in the dramatic recreations were also lame. And yet they portray the recreations in such way where they expect you to believe that's exactly how it happened. Here's the issue - MANY of the recreations didn't have ANY eye witnesses to them, so how on earth do you present alleged facts with no supporting evidence? This might as well have been kids telling you ghost stories they heard from other kids, who heard it from other kids...but you're just supposed to believe it's all true? Even when there's no documentation, evidence, or anything else at all?